Big Problems with the Big Bang...

Anyway, scientists are the ones who 'use and support' the 'big bang theory', whether they are chemists, physicists, etc etc. Its got nothing to do with evolutionary biologists specifically.

"specifically" exactly where you cant see that you are separating biological evolution from all other types of evolution. they are all part of the same theory. the whole theory basicall says that 1 random chance over a time period of who-knows how-long, man the universe along with everything in it evolved and now we have life on one planet (for some reason, only one planet). so basically we are here by chance. there are two many things that have to be right in order for life to exist at all.

What is insufficient in the answers I have given you?

my bad, I skimmed through the thread and didnt see where you posted it.

No, edited. There are even copies of older gospels that have whats called 'marginal notes', written by the scribes. In later copies these notes become part of the text. Besides, the very assembly of the bible is a type of editing. There were numerous gospels, many were rejected to make the old bible. Then the protestants edited the bible once again, removing even more books. Hell, the deists, like jefferson, edited out most of the 'hocus pocusy' type stuff from the bible too.

what about King James? he had it translated directly from fresh copies of the original text. no room for much addition or deletion.

I understand that many scientists believe that this is how the universe began, but that does mean that its true.

...then it was born with zero volume and grew from that.

There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

as far as I know, science makes predictions, if a theory cannot make predictions, its not scientific, even if every scientist in the world agreed on that theory.

Thus for those first three minutes the only element in the universe was hydrogen, i.e. single protons not bound to anything else.

if there was only hydrogen, how did we get all of the other elements?

quote:
4.6 billions years ago, the earth was formed
This has nothing to do with the big bang or inflation and is an entirely different subject.

it may not have anything to do with the actual expansion, but it has to do with the evolution of the universe. the earth is part of this universe, a very small part with a very big view, but it is part of this universe.

Chaos into order / Order into Chaos...

Chaos into order never happend unless there is intelligence involved.

Have you ever noticed that in NATURE nothing and I do mean nothing is ever symmetrical or perfectly ordered or even?

this is an example of the second law of thermodynamics.

Before you can understand about how something can come from nothing you have to understand about Zero Point energy.

so what you are saying is that something can come from nothing? that is what I was saying all along and people kept telling me that the BB theory didnt happen like that, but you are saying that it can and it did.

By some estimates the 26 billion lightyear visible sphere is to the entire Universe as a grain of sand is to the earth.

well if there are things that are 26 billion lightyears away, than the big bang theory is indeed a dud, because the theory states that the big bang occured less than 20 billion years ago. there is possible way for something to be that far, its older than the universe. your statement just blew the entire theory out of the water.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Before you can understand about how something can come from nothing you have to understand about Zero Point energy.

so what you are saying is that something can come from nothing? that is what I was saying all along and people kept telling me that the BB theory didnt happen like that, but you are saying that it can and it did.

In our universe exists a background energy known as ZPE. Have you ever wondered what planets and starts were warping in "empty" space according to General relativity? It's a fact space isn't "empty" as most people think, there's a sea of quantum vacuum energy. There have been expirements proving that matter can spontaneously arise from "empty" space or zero-point field but I don't have a link so I can't back up the claim.
Now if in fact our universe started by a flucuation of the vacuum is still unknown.

abyss.uoregon.edu...

www.nasa.gov...

Hi All

Warp is possible but we would have to have control over ZPE and we are far from that stage... We are currently a Class 0 society which means we use organic materials mostly for the world power... Very basic.. Class III is where we need to be. A society that has the power to manipulate space.

The principle of warp is to repel the ZPF in a way that propels your ship through space. A bit like squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube

Seriously though there are already military torpedoes that use a similar principle to propel themselves underwater by creating a zone around the torpedo that repels the water around it and so can reach super sonic (measured by the supersonic air speed) speeds.

Anyway,

Actually Chaos into Order and Vice-Versa is actually true nature and does not require intelligence to happen. Just Intelligence to observe it is happening and then due to quantum mechanics the results are set in stone.

I would also like to point our that the second law of Thermodynamics observes the universal law that nothing can ever be equal, it is not the law itself.

Complicated but true.

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 22-8-2005 by Neon Haze]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the whole theory basicall says that 1 random chance over a time period of who-knows how-long, man the universe along with everything in it evolved and now we have life on one planet (for some reason, only one planet).

There is no such scientific theory that states anything like this. Evolution, the word, roughly means 'unraveling' or 'unrolling', as with a scroll. Its also nearly synonymous with development. So the development of anything can be called its 'evolution', thus Cosmic Evolution and Biological evolution, they are independant theories. There is no one theory that explains cosmic evolution and biological evolution or all of the stuff 'in between', they are simply differnet theories. If the consensus theory of cosmological evolution is refuted tommorrow, biological evolution remains completely unaffected.

so basically we are here by chance. there are two many things that have to be right in order for life to exist at all.

You seem to be confusing what's random in evolution. Mutations occur randomly, there is nothing directing them. Thats whats random. Selection provides a 'direction'. It would be crazy to say that birds popped up from reptiles completely at random. They didnt', there was selective pressure that 'directed', unintelligently, the 'process'.

what about King James? he had it translated directly from fresh copies of the original text.

No one, anywhere, has the orignal texts. Not King James nor modern researchers. The King James edition is not the earliest edition, the earlier texts show this.

I understand that many scientists believe that this is how the universe began, but that does mean that its true.

Of course, its a theory, we have no way of knowing if its "The Truth", but the theories are unrefuted, strongly supported by the evidence, well tested, and their predictions are confirmed. They work. Is it "The Truth"? Who knows, god could be making everything merely appear like this, or he could miraculously be mucking with the results of these experiments, anything metaphysical is possible here.

There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

as far as I know, science makes predictions, if a theory cannot make predictions, its not scientific, even if every scientist in the world agreed on that theory.

I don't think this is entirely true. A some theories are less 'powerful' than others and make fewer predictions than others. That doesn't mean that one that makes lots of predictions is more scientific than one that only makes a few.
But also, notice, they are talking, specifically about "what gave rise to the Big Bang". There is no widely agreed upon theory about what did this. These are seperate speculative theories about what gave rise to the big bang, they are not saying that the theories about the big bang 'make no testable predictions'.

if there was only hydrogen, how did we get all of the other elements?

Nucleosynthesis.

Chaos into order never happend unless there is intelligence involved.

This is simply untrue. Intelligence is not required to move from an unorganized state into an organized one.

so what you are saying is that something can come from nothing?

I know that this was addressed to anothe poster, but.... something can come from nothing, its been observed. When you have 'empty' space, you get quantum fluccuations that leads to these bizzare and exotic particles that literally pop in and out of existence, comming from nothing, going back into nothing, its called colloquially the 'quantum foam'. Yes, it is something of a violation of the 'laws' of thermodynamics, but so what? The 'laws' of thermodynamics were never anything other than theories anyway. Theories change to suite the evidence. Thats what science is all about.

But what some people here are talking about is Zero Point Energy, which, I think we can all agree, is 'outside' mainstream science (more or less).

A society that has the power to manipulate space.

do you know what space is?

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

A society that has the power to manipulate space.

do you know what space is?

EC

I meant the ability to manipulate the Zero Point Field, or to be able to manipulate object on a Planck scale (smallest known measurable scale or to be able to take energy from the very ether and use it as a means of powering their Civ.

In classical physics the smallest known fundamental particles in the universe were thought of as a point but in recent years it has become more acceptable to think of the universe in terms of strings, hence super string theory or M-theory.

So to answer your question of what is space or space-time is simply the medium that matter is suspended in. I personally believe along with a growing number of other physicist and cosmologists that Space ~IS~ the Zero Point Field. Quantum Foam Chaos.

I had a debate recently about consciousness and the origins of intelligence. To cut a long debate short, there is now evidence that the brain is in actual fact a receiver of consciousness not the creator of it. There are quantum sized structures within the brain that appear to vibrate. this is a very recent discovery and so hence the recent debate.

Personally I believe that the so-called SOUL is in fact quantum fluctuations created by chaos. so in a very real sense science is now beginning to learn that the concept of life after death and a soul may actually exist. But that is a very simplified version of the truth.

Any way... what is SPace? it's a lot more than empty is for sure....

NeoN HaZe.

Any way... what is SPace? it's a lot more than empty is for sure....

well if it is full of anything, its nothing materialistic. its nothing made of matter. if that were not so, we wouldnt have to use matter to propel ourselves through space (via spacecraft or whatever) for example you cant stick a fan out there and start to move. there is no kind of matter to push. (action/reaction). now I can understand that solarwinds can push things arond in the universe but you gotta remember that those radioactive [particles] have mass which means that it is matter that can influence the direction of other matter. I dont even know where im going with this, I forget.oh well.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



just for this thread. I would like the big bang theory presented. Its not that I dont want to go find it myself, I simply want to see which version of the big bang you believe in.


EC

I wonder what which version of the creation you believe in.

Genesis Chapter 1, verse 3:

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (4) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. (5) God called the light "day," and the the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day."

?

Genesis Chapter 1, verse 14:

"And God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, (15) and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. (16) God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (17) God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, (18) to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. (19) And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fourth day."

Seems the source of your logic has some flaws as well.

How was light and day and night created on two separate days?

Why did God have to separate the light and darkness on day four, if God had already accomplished it on day one?

[edit on 1-9-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]

Dear List,

I come to the question of the big bang from a very different perspective insofar as how I approach the question as to whether an explosion produced the universe.

Because of my interest in original cause, I can use some information most do not use or are entirely unaware of it.

In 1955 a text was published that correlates the physical universe and the spiritual universe as an actual unity. The text explains that our cosmology is not grand enough to understand universe origins much less propose that whatever it was that produced it, became or was ignited and matter resulted.

The first cause of anything exists outside of the system it produces. It has to because all systems are related facts or objects and someone who knows a lot about facts and objects is the one who has to select them to make a successful system. Systems of objects or facts are not spontaneously associated; they have to be placed in a way that the unrelated is not part of them.

According to the text, the universe is in its parts arranged like an atom. There is a nucleus, inside and outside energy fields, and subordinate charges that circulate about the center in a balanced way. In other words, in spite of all the pieces that go to make up an atom, its component parts and their arrangement result in an organized stability.

The master universe - all the universe that could ever be perceived - has a central core which exhibits tremendous gravity attraction in two ways:

1) linear gravity
2) pre-materialization gravity

The first one I assume everyone understands well enough, but the second one is not well known, if at all.

The basic units of matter are not the atomic units we usually think of, but each constituent part of matter is made up of a spinning body that is non-reactive to linear gravity. One hundred of these bodies make up one electron. The loss of one or more these bodies destroys typical electronic identity, thus bringing into existence one of the ten modified forms of the electron.

It is this central core to the universe about which science (and our earth religions) have no clue about because it is so distant and because it is shrouded by horizontal and vertical gravity bodies that appear to have some influence on the master universe’s equilibrium.

Matter in the central core is not dual- dual meaning positive and negative charges- but is of triune organization sometimes referred to as triata. Furthermore, the central core has given rise to the outside, and subordinate, universes which are the ones we view from our earth.

Space is a product, an endowment if you will, originating in the core universe and through the processes of Original Cause, was EXTENDED into the time-space universe levels we see today. No explosion accompanied the appearance of space outside of the core. Space has motion as well as contains motion. Space itself is not uniformly deep as it spreads out from the most gigantic materialization in the universe horizontally and perpendicularly from the central part of the materialization. Picture a huge materialized ellipse nearly as wide as it is long, and along its central edge extending all the way around it, there impinges the stuff of space, very shallow at the central edge and thickening as it extends out toward time time and then again shading out to a very thin thickness of space at the limit of the universe extension.

Space contains force fields in the time universes, or areas of pre-materialized matter that comes forth from the core, and when these fields are sufficiently large, they can be intelligently organized into the vortexes that eventually materialize the force fields into the matter stars are made of and eventually become the nebula that create solar systems and other types of universe phenomena.

A Big Bang is a child’s explanation of how the universe came to be. We will understand what I have spoken here in the future, perhaps in a relatively near future. However, there is no reason why the basics can not be discussed now.

This explanation is in layman’s terms. I am aware of that. Someday science will be able to put it into the terms of its own philosophical meter and measurements and understandings that will be similar in meaning to the above.

The text by the way is the textbook being provided to groups who will make use of this knowledge in the coming century, not only how to harness “zero point energy”, but provide the world a unified cosmic view of the universe we belong to. The book’s title is called “Urantia” which signifies the cosmic name of our planet, but also the name of the Deity of The Supreme, resident upon her from which we have taken our name.

Thank you for your time and I will be glad to answer any questions.

i suggest everyone here listen to a song called ''creating something out of nothing, only to destroy it'' from a band called norma jean. one of my favorites.

doesnt have anything to do with the topic, but i thought you would all enjoy some interesting lyrical expressions. from a great band of course.

topsecret, I have a secret to share with you.
Please stay on topic.

The members here are trying to have a discussion here about the Big Band. De-railing threads is not appreciated here on ATS.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

I wonder what which version of the creation you believe in.

I wonder what difference it makes.
I believe what the bible teaches. I believe that it was 6 literal days and not time periods.
I take the bible literally. if you take it literally, you get specifics. and that is what science looks for is specifics.

and my logic is not flawed at all. evening and morning always begins and ends a day and light was created first before the light source probably so people would know to not worship the sun, even though some people still decided to.

EC

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

I care nothing if the Big Bang happened or not. But I enjoy bugging the worshippers of the sacred cow of mainstream science.

www.metaresearch.org...

www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

www.electric-universe.info...

jmccanneyscience.com...

Metaresearch is Dr van Flandern; 20 year veteran Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory. He's qualified to post 10 flaws with big bang and the fundamental flaw with red shift interpretation, (wildly expanding universe theory).

He has a 5 buck message board with a team that's heard all the arguments before, and answered them. Take your arguments there, because I don't care. Name calling won't answer all 10 points in depth this time. Wrong on one doesn't mean wrong on all points.

Post a link to the debate where you skunk him Y'all. (AS IF!)

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
my bad, I skimmed through the thread and didnt see where you posted it.

About the rudest thing you can do here at ATS is begin an argumentative thread and then not read the replies that people provide to you. I grudgingly read everything, line for line, that you post here, "Evolution Cruncher," and I think you should give the same respect to people who take time out of their lives to write about your topic within your own thread.

Anyways, I just wanted to quickly drop by and say, while there are serious questions that can be raised about Big Bang theory, those listed in your initial post are not foremost among them. You would probably be very interested in checking out the pages James just provided.

Concerning your insistence that there are "different versions of the Big Bang theory," I will point out what I believe is happening. Initially you posted a description of what you believed the "Big Bang" was. This was completely wrong. You saw the corrections that people were making as an opportunity to further your anti-science cause by attempting to argue along the lines of "SEE?? Even you scientist guys can't agree on what happened!"

I want to assure you that this progression is completely transparent. We're On To You.

A common occurrence on this board is the following tactic:
1) A user who has a pre-defined, rigid stance concerning a subject creates an argumentative thread on the subject.
2) This user will fill the initial post with false or baseless information and will combine multiple falsities, to create what I'm gonna call "Compound Absurdities."
3) Hoping that the responders will concentrate on the errors in the initial post, rather than the substance (if any) of the initial argument, the initial poster will (to the untrained eye, inexplicably) sit back and defend his errors for awhile while skimming replies.
4) When the initial poster is tired of discussing the errors, he provides a post that changes the topic completely. (In this case, the topic change came when the initial poster attempted to steer the discussion from Big Bang theory to abiogenesis/evolutionary theory.)

At end game, no one wins. Not the poster, and not the responders. It's a tried and true method to produce frustration in posters that genuinely want to get down to business and dissect the issues.

Now, maybe I've pegged this thread all wrong -- BUT -- when you admit that you're just skimming replies, I have to ask you a question. What do you expect out of this thread? Did you begin the thread to learn? To influence or persuade other people to change their minds about the Big Bang theory? To have a hearty discourse with your peers? To just waste people's time? I ask you these questions because, honestly, I can't tell what you want.

Nothing personal, by the way, Cruncher. I respect you and I will continue reading every single word that you write when I join in on a thread you're involved in. I just wanted to describe a common occurrence on this board.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Nothing personal, by the way, Cruncher. I respect you and I will continue reading every single word that you write when I join in on a thread you're involved in. I just wanted to describe a common occurrence on this board.

Zip

I do feel that you are taking this all way too seriously. Though I am glad you added your final statement as above...

Although there are many members here would agree with you in terms of idiotic posts. However the original posters questions are far from idiotic and show a questioning mind. After all isn't questioning the how and why of the big bang the biggest questions on all physicists minds?

Different people have different levels of understanding that is true, but the fun of Science is the questioning. Learning comes from this line of thought.

I am happy to debate different idea's with any member of above top secret so long as they have a genuine interest in the subject at hand.

Respect is Key even in opposing views, we as a race should do better if we al respected each other more.

Best regards,

NeoN HaZe.

Each of these questions:

1. a tiny bit of nothing packed together and then exploed to form everthing in the universe we see today? that is a fairytale is I ever heard one.

2. nothingness cannot pack together and form something. it has no way to pack together.

3. a vacuum has no density, it is said that nothingness got very dense and thats why it exploded/expanded.

4. there is nothing to make it explode. no fire and no match. not a chemical explosion, chemicals didnt exist yet. not a nuclear explosion. atoms didnt exist yet. so there is no room for an explosion. so how could it expand without explosion? it cant.

5. there is no way to expand space that does not exist.

6. nothingness cannot produce heat.

Stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory (that the Bang was produced from "nothingness," rather than an ultradense singularity.)

Time and time again, members of this board are baited into playing the role of "teacher," when a cursory glance at WikiPedia or a similar site could easily take the place of pages and pages of replies, wherein members mollycoddle willfully ignorant instigators with myriad links and explanations that remain ignored.

Again, nothing personal against EC, but when I read that he "skimmed" replies in this thread, I was incited to anger. Anyway, back to the thread. Cruncher, you may enjoy www.big-bang-theory.com.... It is a Christian apologetic website that supports the Big Bang theory as a mechanic of God's alleged creation.

Zip

EDIT: I should add that I did not call anyone or any questions idiotic, as I believe has been implied.

[edit on 9/20/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot

Stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory (that the Bang was produced from "nothingness," rather than an ultra dense singularity.)

That is one perspective and one theory and it's where speculation about the big bang occurs as we do not have an understanding of the physics at hand at the point of a singularity. In fact computation breaks down way before we get even close to the conditions of a singularity.

So what happens after quantitative methods fail? Why, nothing but conjecture.

As I have mentioned previously there are other theories about what created the big band that do away with the need for a singularity entirely.

There are even theories that state there was no big bang at all. Who could say with any certainty which was correct? Not I or even Steven Hawking or Kip Thorn, or for that matter anyone with half a brain. (btw those guys have more than half a brain…)

But it is the thought experiments and discussions that create the possibility that every now and then science breaks through a boundary.

My point is that this board should not be treated as a teacher/student site and more of a place to discuss different ideas.

With Best Intentions,

NeoN HaZe.

How was light and day and night created on two separate days?
by Esoteric Teacher]

For starters, Genesis was not the work of some famous prophet, but the Moses era transcribing of the (ongoing) Hebrew oral tradition. Expecting it to be infallable is unreasonable. ExtraBiblical works already existed, but the oral tradition was written down as a basis for religion.

The Bible is scentifically accurate in predicting the effects of a major meteoric hail/impact event; global severe quake, part of the earth burnt, waves roaring briefly, skies darkened, instant tribulation.

I'm an old earth genetic upgrade creationist (Genesis 6:2-4). Surely God is billions of years old, so what is a day to God? A phase of creation, greater than an age or era. The time (theoretically) when quasars hadn't spewed galaxies yet, giving light. And the time before that, & whatever spewed many quasars.

I disagree with mainstream science about the origin of earth & moon. I saw new moon created around Juptier from the comet fragment impacts. Moon rocks are fused on the surface, so the moon has a different history than earth.

Major impacts with the sun could eject planets and moon globs that cool as they age, forming a crust with heated core. Seems logical to me.

The earth was void once. Demanding literal interpretation of the Bible is unreasonable considering the many symbolisms used throughout, as Daniel interpreted. Bible doesn't actually say there was an apple with Eve, the Church decided to say that.

Neon, I admire your courteousness and respect, but at this time I'm going to have to inspire us all to acknowledge this board's Rule Number One.

1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Once the original poster had been correctly informed about the true nature of the Big Bang theory, any further posts made by him that supported the flawed and made-up original depiction were knowingly false. They were then knowingly misleading. They were then knowingly inaccurate.

I support searches for the truth. I support original ideas. I'm all for that.

The original poster in this case concocted a brand new theory and called it the "Big Bang" theory. This theory, of course, has already been formulated. It differs vastly from the original poster's ideas. If the original poster is submitting his own ideas of the creation of the universe, he should call his new theory something besides the "Big Bang Theory."

That name is already taken. When the original poster posted his "version" of the Big Bang Theory, those who were not already familiar with the REAL theory might have been misguided by his description of it, and they may have been forever thrown off balance. That is why we have Rule Number One - so people who aren't familiar with a subject aren't mislead.

Zip

[edit on 9/23/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher


Genesis Chapter 1, verse 14:

"And God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, (15) and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. (16) God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. (17) God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, (18) to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. (19) And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fourth day."

Seems the source of your logic has some flaws as well.

How was light and day and night created on two separate days?

Why did God have to separate the light and darkness on day four, if God had already accomplished it on day one?

What happens on the first day of creation is not the creation of light, but the appearance of light. It says, “Let there be light”, and uses the Hebrew verb meaning “to be”. It doesn't say God created the light. The light was created in the beginning. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth That means the entire universe and this planet. Not just earth and sky

The Hebrew word for heavens & Earth refers to the entire physical universe, stars, galaxies, matter, energy, space and time. Light was created in the beginning. It was dark on the surface of the earth and the waters because Earth atmosphere was opaque so and light could not penetrate to the surface

Steven Hawking describes it like this

There was an intense interplanetary debris cloud and the gases in the Earth's atmosphere itself combined with that debris cloud to prevent the passage of sunlight to the surface of the Earth.

On the fourth day of creation, we again see the Hebrew verb meaning, “let there be”, the sun, moon and stars. The observer on the surface of the waters, for the first time, sees the objects that are responsible for the light that came through in the first stage of the fourth day.

It was not until the fourth day of creation that the Earth's atmosphere became transparent. Before the first day, it was opaque. From the first day to the fourth day, it was translucent, permanently overcast, and on the fourth day the clouds broke and the author places you as an observer that can now see the sun where you are now aware that is what is the cause of the light.



The problem is the 16th verse, which says, “So God made the sun, moon and stars.” The Hebrew verb for “made” means to manufacture or fabricate. What English does to this is adds past tense where hebrew doesn't have verbs but rather is to be understood in the contextual manner that makes sense. which mean the action is either complete or has not yet been completed.

The 16th verse “completed” , meaning the action was completed at some time in the past. It could have been completed on the fourth day, the third day, the second day, the first day, or in the beginning.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth,” and that [Hebrew word for heavens and Earth] would include the sun, moon and stars. They were made in the beginning, but the bible puts the reader in the position of an observer and that you wouldn't see them until the fourth day.

for the first time, mention species of life that require the visibility of the sun, moon and stars to regulate their biological intentions such as nocturnal behaviors and biological time clocks etc .

The word "day" in Genesis is the Hebrew word "Yom" which means "period of time" and has multiple meanings in the Genesis text. 24 hour days are not defined as such until "day" four (when the sun and moon become visible through the cloud cover of the earth), and there is no specified period of time between Genesis 1:1 (the big bang) and 1:2 (the formation of the earth).

If you read Genesis 1 you must see it via two suppositions and that the word "Day" is a period of time secondly the story is told from an earthly POV and not from the universe. If you do it like that then the Genesis account works in lockstep with recent moder discoveries in cosmological events including the fossil record .


[edit on 23-1-2008 by Conspiriology]